All oppose House of Representatives Bill H129 and its equivalent in the Senate, Bill 87. The proposed laws, both titled "Level Playing Field/Local Gov't Competition" bills, would bar new municipal ISPs from selling broadband to consumers in neighboring cities or pricing their services too low. The legislation has passed in the House.

Negatively affected

"WHEREAS, these bills do not provide a level playing field to cities, to cities, towns and counties," the Chapel Hill resolution declares, "but greatly hinder local governments from providing needed communications services, including public safety networks, and especially advanced high-speed broadband services, in unserved and underserved areas."

And:

WHEREAS, there are telecommunications designers, equipment manufacturers and suppliers, in North Carolina who will be negatively affected if local governments are not allowed to provided needed communications services, meaning North Carolina will lose more jobs as a result of prohibiting public investment in high-quality, advanced broadband infrastructure.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the Town of Chapel Hill that the Council opposes Senate Bill 87 and House Bill 129 and urges all members of the North Carolina General Assembly to vote "no" in committee and, if necessary, on the floor of the General Assembly.

The other resolutions are similarly worded. Interestingly, the city of Raleigh, which has also passed a statement against the bill, is partially represented by the proposed law's sponsor in the House, Marilyn Avila (R-Wake). Avila's legislative mailing address is in Raleigh.

Avila told local press that the legislation would protect businesses from "predatory" local governments that want to build their own ISPs. Some of her constituents clearly see the predator problem differently. Resolved, Raleigh declares, that

The General Assembly promote competition by curtailing predatory pricing practices that are used to push new providers and public broadband services out of the market.

The General Assembly reject any legislation similar to the Level Playing Field bills that would have a chilling effect on local economies and would impede or remove local governments' ability to provide broadband services, including WiFi, to enhance economic development and improve the quality of life for their citizens, and would negatively impact cities such as Salisbury and Wilson which have made large capital investments in broadband systems.

The legislation has even drawn the ire of a Federal Communications Commissioner, Mignon Clyburn, who recently called the legislation a "significant barrier to broadband deployment" which "may impede local efforts to promote economic development."

Womble Carlyle's page for Brunstetter says he handles corporate law cases and "advises boards of directors of publicly held, non-publicly held, and large non-profit corporations on all aspects of corporate governance, shareholder/member relations, government regulation and public policy."

The Vice Chair for the Committee is Senator Thom Goolsby (R-New Hanover), a criminal defense and injury attorney who also teaches law.

Matthew Lasar
Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz. Emailmatthew.lasar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@matthewlasar

44 Reader Comments

Seriously, good for them. With Congress trying their best to kill any net-neutrality that they can all the while shouting "let the free market decide", you have places like NC that are trying to take away any free-market choice.

So...many are forced to go with one ISP that won't adhere to any neutrality if they get their way, AND they take away your choice for going with a different ISP. Free market my ass.

@ Goofball: I'm wondering how these a$$hat politicians, most with an 'R' in front of there name, can shout "let the free market decide" while supporting the local monopolies.

Quote: "Avila told local press that the legislation would protect businesses from "predatory" local governments that want to build their own ISPs."

I call BS. Sitting here in Chattanooga with a low tier municipal 50/50Mbs connection, watching tech related and other businesses thrive, watching Comcast (suck it!) upgrade their services finally, and our economy grow, I beg to say otherwise. Municipal providers have to make a profit just like any other business.

If an example of the corporate takeover of government was ever needed here it is.

Corporations need to attack this with laws because they realize that a customer focused competitor would ruin them. They like their monopolies, but in the absence of monopolies they are comforted by the fact that a competitor will have similar motives and would rather price match and collude than actually compete. Municipal services provide a new threat because they are completely customer centric, their goal is to please their customers and not their shareholders.

"The city of Wilson, North Carolina launched a $28 million municipal broadband operation named Greenlight last year, offering symmetrical speeds up to 100Mbps -- far surpassing the best local incumbents Embarq and Time Warner Cable have to offer. Embarq and Time Warner Cable did what any carrier in a government-protected duopoly would do: they began a several year campaign to lobby state legislators to pass laws that would effectively cripple or ban such operations,"

You want competition? Let the market decide? Looks like they did. If these companies want to compete then they might want to provide what the customer wants and a a "fair market" price. Charlotte, N.C. is the 17th largest city in the U.S. and they are just now rolling out 50Mbps connections.

What better way to foster competition than a company coming in and beating your ass stupid? You either step up or get out of the game.

I live in Wilson, NC and this entire thing smacks of shenanigans. TWC and local politicos graciously compromise to allow Greenlight in the city limits only. In exchange our representatives STFU and don't try to protect any other counties, only beg and whimper for exemptions for ourselves. The city of Wilson pleaded to phone and cable companies for years to provide fast service, but there was no immediate profit return, so no deal. Of course these companies will spend ungodly amounts of money in litigation and vote buying, but not on providing fast broadband. The proposed legislation will not even allow Wilson to pay to repair it's own fiber optic network in an attempt to cause shutdown by attrition. Statistic manipulation, outright lies, bribery, just another day in our happy corporate sponsored government.

I live about 40 minutes away from Asheville and it's quite nice IMHO. It can pull some clout. The other cities will hopefully pull their fair share too. Would I move to Asheville for super high speed internet? Nah, but it is a huge city and I prefer cities to towns. Closer to me than Knoxville anyway.

I'm from Winston-Salem...You would think that we would be the most upset over a bill that just happen to come to the House right when we were petitioning Google to setup free citywide broadband. But to spite 60% of the readers being upset Google went to Kansas city, the WS Journal buried any stories on H129 or it's possible relation to the move to setup broadband in WS...but then "According to that committee's page, the body is headed by Peter S. Brunstetter (R-Winston-Salem), who also works as an attorney for the Womble Carlyle investment group." So that explains a lot...since they have application and electronic commerce agreements with time Warner Cable. Talk about crooked.

All of these resolutions are symbolic--they have no legal teeth whatsoever--and that makes them purely political. When the law is passed and signed by the governor, these cities will have to abide by it--resolutions to the contrary notwithstanding. (Every time Congress wants to make a political point while voting the other way, Congress passes a non-binding resolution to that effect, then votes against it.) People are so simple minded on this issue that it is amazing.

Municipalities putting up their own tax-payer funded "monopolies" are going to be better than privately funded "monopolies" how? It's so amusing to me how some people automatically assume that corporations are "bad" and governments--doesn't much matter what kind of governments--are "good." The notion is ridiculous.

Governments--corporations--all of them are peopled with employees working for a living with their self-interests in mind. People in government are no more altruistic than people working for corporations. What's the difference? The difference is that if a corporation offers you a product or service you don't happen to like, then you are under no obligation to pay for it. If, however, your local government levies a tax on you that you don't like, or provides a service that you find inferior--you are *forced* to pay for it whether you like it or not. The people who think corporations are "monopolies" but think local governments are angels sent from heaven, pure as the driven snow, perfect in all their ways, are to be pitied, I think. It's been a long time since I was that naive.

These days, tax-revenue-poor municipalities around the country are looking for plausible excuses to raise taxes of all kinds. "Municipal broadband" is a hot button for many of them, as they sit back and calculate all the new tax revenues they can "legitimately" raise under the Dudley DoRight banner of "municipal broadband." It is such a red herring.

If states are really unhappy with commercial broadband as rolled out in their localities, all they have to do, in my estimation, is to simply tell the ISPs what they have to provide in terms of service and products if they wish to continue doing business in their states. This is not unusual--every state, for instance, tells insurance companies of all types what they must do and who they must cover as a prerequisite for doing business in the state. And there's the rub. States could do this if this was actually what they wanted to do. It's not. Instead, they want to use the mirage of "municipal broadband" as a rallying cry to get their hands deeper into their constituents pockets in terms of tax levies. For them, "municipal broadband" is one of those juicy "public service" ideas that practically guarantees a permanent, ever-widening stream of incoming tax revenue. Local governments smack their lips at the prospect. For them it is a boondoggle.

Anecdotally, I've been in a suburb of a very large southern city for the past month (on business), and I've been using the local municipal wifi broadband the entire time. I also happen to be located smack in the middle of a hotspot, and am always at 4-5 bar signal strength. I've opted for the monthly fee of $21.95 for unlimited access while I am here. I cannot help but contrast this with my $42.95 Comcast cable account at home. My top download speed via municipal broadband here has been 112kb/s, average is about 80kb/s--and I'm on a G network. Despite being in a hotspot, I'm sure to lose the signal at least twice a day--sometimes more like 4-5 times a day. Packet loss somewhere along the line is regular and I'm used to pages sometimes loading quickly and sometimes continuously timing out--no rhyme or reason. Signal loss, when it comes, is inexplicable from my end, so I can only guess at some kind of sporadic interference somewhere, I suppose, that causes the WiFi network to simply disappear--sometimes for hours--from my available wireless SSID listing.

My Comcast cable broadband is so much better a deal than this that it defies description--Comcast costs 2x as much, but delivers 7x-20x the average download speed (depending on the server), has about 1% of the packet loss, and stays up so well that I have to really think about the last time my cable connection went down to recall it--and am not sure I can. At 2x the price, Comcast is a far, far better value than this municipal wifi.

And for those who keep talking about only being able to hook up with a single ISP in some areas--the kicker is that in my present location municipal wifi is the *only* service in the area that I can get aside from DSL--and it royally sucks, by comparison.... I know that in a sense it isn't fair to compare WiFi with cable broadband, since the latter has so many inherent advantages. But I do think it is fair to point out that in terms value received per dollar for the consumer, this particular municipal wifi isn't even close.

All of these resolutions are symbolic--they have no legal teeth whatsoever--and that makes them purely political. When the law is passed and signed by the governor, these cities will have to abide by it--resolutions to the contrary notwithstanding. (Every time Congress wants to make a political point while voting the other way, Congress passes a non-binding resolution to that effect, then votes against it.) People are so simple minded on this issue that it is amazing.

Municipalities putting up their own tax-payer funded "monopolies" are going to be better than privately funded "monopolies" how? It's so amusing to me how some people automatically assume that corporations are "bad" and governments--doesn't much matter what kind of governments--are "good." The notion is ridiculous.

Governments--corporations--all of them are peopled with employees working for a living with their self-interests in mind. People in government are no more altruistic than people working for corporations. What's the difference? The difference is that if a corporation offers you a product or service you don't happen to like, then you are under no obligation to pay for it. If, however, your local government levies a tax on you that you don't like, or provides a service that you find inferior--you are *forced* to pay for it whether you like it or not. The people who think corporations are "monopolies" but think local governments are angels sent from heaven, pure as the driven snow, perfect in all their ways, are to be pitied, I think. It's been a long time since I was that naive.

These days, tax-revenue-poor municipalities around the country are looking for plausible excuses to raise taxes of all kinds. "Municipal broadband" is a hot button for many of them, as they sit back and calculate all the new tax revenues they can "legitimately" raise under the Dudley DoRight banner of "municipal broadband." It is such a red herring.

If states are really unhappy with commercial broadband as rolled out in their localities, all they have to do, in my estimation, is to simply tell the ISPs what they have to provide in terms of service and products if they wish to continue doing business in their states. This is not unusual--every state, for instance, tells insurance companies of all types what they must do and who they must cover as a prerequisite for doing business in the state. And there's the rub. States could do this if this was actually what they wanted to do. It's not. Instead, they want to use the mirage of "municipal broadband" as a rallying cry to get their hands deeper into their constituents pockets in terms of tax levies. For them, "municipal broadband" is one of those juicy "public service" ideas that practically guarantees a permanent, ever-widening stream of incoming tax revenue. Local governments smack their lips at the prospect. For them it is a boondoggle.

Anecdotally, I've been in a suburb of a very large southern city for the past month (on business), and I've been using the local municipal wifi broadband the entire time. I also happen to be located smack in the middle of a hotspot, and am always at 4-5 bar signal strength. I've opted for the monthly fee of $21.95 for unlimited access while I am here. I cannot help but contrast this with my $42.95 Comcast cable account at home. My top download speed via municipal broadband here has been 112kb/s, average is about 80kb/s--and I'm on a G network. Despite being in a hotspot, I'm sure to lose the signal at least twice a day--sometimes more like 4-5 times a day. Packet loss somewhere along the line is regular and I'm used to pages sometimes loading quickly and sometimes continuously timing out--no rhyme or reason. Signal loss, when it comes, is inexplicable from my end, so I can only guess at some kind of sporadic interference somewhere, I suppose, that causes the WiFi network to simply disappear--sometimes for hours--from my available wireless SSID listing.

My Comcast cable broadband is so much better a deal than this that it defies description--Comcast costs 2x as much, but delivers 7x-20x the average download speed (depending on the server), has about 1% of the packet loss, and stays up so well that I have to really think about the last time my cable connection went down to recall it--and am not sure I can. At 2x the price, Comcast is a far, far better value than this municipal wifi.

And for those who keep talking about only being able to hook up with a single ISP in some areas--the kicker is that in my present location municipal wifi is the *only* service in the area that I can get aside from DSL--and it royally sucks, by comparison.... I know that in a sense it isn't fair to compare WiFi with cable broadband, since the latter has so many inherent advantages. But I do think it is fair to point out that in terms value received per dollar for the consumer, this particular municipal wifi isn't even close.

Hey, how about you STFU and listen to the people eh? I live 3 miles, THREE FUCKING MILES from downtown forth worth. The best internet service I can get is 6mbps DSL. That's it. Three MILES. So don't be surprised if nobody takes your pro corporation side.

It's obvious with your statement that local governments should just "tell the telecoms what they need to provide" that you have no idea what the hell is going on, in relation to this story or possibly in the whole of the country.

You can't just tell government granted monopolies to improve their service, that's what these towns tried to do for years. You aren't going to undu 25 million worth of lobbying dollars with a strongly worded letter.

Quite astro turfing for corporations and think like a human being that isn't a walking billboard for corporate fuckery.

"If states are really unhappy with commercial broadband as rolled out in their localities, all they have to do, in my estimation, is to simply tell the ISPs what they have to provide in terms of service and products if they wish to continue doing business in their states."

The states have different powers to regulate telecom carriers than they do insurance cos. Regardless though, state legislatures are essentially owned by big telcos and cablecos.

Comparing a Wi-Fi service to cable service is almost always going to favor the cable service, it doesn't matter who operates which one. You appear to have a fairly poor understanding of the differences and limitations of such. The community fiber networks are far superior to Comcast's cable services in terms of capacity, reliability, and affordability.

Municipalities putting up their own tax-payer funded "monopolies" are going to be better than privately funded "monopolies" how? It's so amusing to me how some people automatically assume that corporations are "bad" and governments--doesn't much matter what kind of governments--are "good." The notion is ridiculous....

I also happen to be located smack in the middle of a hotspot,

...

My top download speed via municipal broadband here has been 112kb/s, average is about 80kb/s--and I'm on a G network.

You've confused Municipal Broadband (which is a government-run ISP that you pay into) with free public WiFi offered by a local community. If you get service from a Municipal Broadband provider, you'll get a monthly bill, just like you would from comcast. If you don't choose to get that service, your taxes are not subsidizing the service for someone else. All operating costs are paid for by the subscribers themselves.

Municipal broadband is not a monopoly unless the government is also preventing other companies from competing. None of the Municipal providers in NC are preventing TWC or Comcast from providing service to their communities. In most cases these providers were set up specifically because the big ISPs weren't serving those communities to their satisfaction. After they did this, they discovered they could provide neighboring communities similar services at lower prices. THAT's what scared the big ISPs and started the lobbying.

All of these resolutions are symbolic--they have no legal teeth whatsoever--and that makes them purely political. When the law is passed and signed by the governor, these cities will have to abide by it--resolutions to the contrary notwithstanding. (Every time Congress wants to make a political point while voting the other way, Congress passes a non-binding resolution to that effect, then votes against it.)

Where in the article does it say that these resolutions are legally binding? The first paragraph spells out what these actions mean: dissent.

Quote:

People are so simple minded on this issue that it is amazing.

You got that right.

Quote:

Municipalities putting up their own tax-payer funded "monopolies" are going to be better than privately funded "monopolies" how?

Who said anything about tax-payer monopolies? What city is even attempting to bar an ISP from providing broadband, either with future or current infrastructure? I've only read it the other way around; the ISPs are preventing competition, while the cities are attempting to provide it.

Quote:

It's so amusing to me how some people automatically assume that corporations are "bad" and governments--doesn't much matter what kind of governments--are "good." The notion is ridiculous.

...the hell? How many cases of abuse from the ISPs do you need for you to be convinced that people aren't assuming anything but rather experiencing the issues?

And, echoing the point above, this isn't a zero-sum game; no one is advocating the removal of privately owned ISPs. They would continue to be free simply be required to compete for once. Yeah, it's a problem that the competitor will have to be the government, but thems the breaks.

Quote:

Governments--corporations--all of them are peopled with employees working for a living with their self-interests in mind. People in government are no more altruistic than people working for corporations. What's the difference? The difference is that if a corporation offers you a product or service you don't happen to like, then you are under no obligation to pay for it. If, however, your local government levies a tax on you that you don't like, or provides a service that you find inferior--you are *forced* to pay for it whether you like it or not. The people who think corporations are "monopolies" but think local governments are angels sent from heaven, pure as the driven snow, perfect in all their ways, are to be pitied, I think. It's been a long time since I was that naive.

Citation needed, at least on the claim that people see the government as "angels sent from heaven, pure as the driven snow, perfect in all their ways."

Quote:

These days, tax-revenue-poor municipalities around the country are looking for plausible excuses to raise taxes of all kinds. "Municipal broadband" is a hot button for many of them, as they sit back and calculate all the new tax revenues they can "legitimately" raise under the Dudley DoRight banner of "municipal broadband." It is such a red herring.

If the citizens are asking for it, so what?

Quote:

If states are really unhappy with commercial broadband as rolled out in their localities, all they have to do, in my estimation, is to simply tell the ISPs what they have to provide in terms of service and products if they wish to continue doing business in their states. This is not unusual--every state, for instance, tells insurance companies of all types what they must do and who they must cover as a prerequisite for doing business in the state. And there's the rub. States could do this if this was actually what they wanted to do. It's not. Instead, they want to use the mirage of "municipal broadband" as a rallying cry to get their hands deeper into their constituents pockets in terms of tax levies. For them, "municipal broadband" is one of those juicy "public service" ideas that practically guarantees a permanent, ever-widening stream of incoming tax revenue. Local governments smack their lips at the prospect. For them it is a boondoggle.

Evidently, the state-level politicians are in bed with the ISPs, while the local governments are more in tune with what the people want.

Oh wait - I guess that's like assuming the local politicians are perfect..

Quote:

Anecdotally, I've been in a suburb of a very large southern city for the past month (on business), and I've been using the local municipal wifi broadband the entire time. I also happen to be located smack in the middle of a hotspot, and am always at 4-5 bar signal strength. I've opted for the monthly fee of $21.95 for unlimited access while I am here. I cannot help but contrast this with my $42.95 Comcast cable account at home. My top download speed via municipal broadband here has been 112kb/s, average is about 80kb/s--and I'm on a G network. Despite being in a hotspot, I'm sure to lose the signal at least twice a day--sometimes more like 4-5 times a day. Packet loss somewhere along the line is regular and I'm used to pages sometimes loading quickly and sometimes continuously timing out--no rhyme or reason. Signal loss, when it comes, is inexplicable from my end, so I can only guess at some kind of sporadic interference somewhere, I suppose, that causes the WiFi network to simply disappear--sometimes for hours--from my available wireless SSID listing.

Annecdotally, I spend a lot of time in a SoCal town that provides wifi for free. It borderline sucks at times - the city really needs to improve the netwok - but it's also a godsend when you need it.

Quote:

My Comcast cable broadband is so much better a deal than this that it defies description--Comcast costs 2x as much, but delivers 7x-20x the average download speed (depending on the server), has about 1% of the packet loss, and stays up so well that I have to really think about the last time my cable connection went down to recall it--and am not sure I can. At 2x the price, Comcast is a far, far better value than this municipal wifi.

Glad you like your Comcast service. That's not a snark, despite an acknowledgement that Comcast is, yet again, listed in the top four worst customer-no-service companies in the US.

However, can you take it with you?

Also: So what? My TWC service sucks ass, especially during peak viewing hours. Somehow, during the airings of the top-rated shows, both my image quality and internet speeds drop off a cliff. Annecdotes are fun!

Quote:

And for those who keep talking about only being able to hook up with a single ISP in some areas--the kicker is that in my present location municipal wifi is the *only* service in the area that I can get aside from DSL--and it royally sucks, by comparison.... I know that in a sense it isn't fair to compare WiFi with cable broadband, since the latter has so many inherent advantages. But I do think it is fair to point out that in terms value received per dollar for the consumer, this particular municipal wifi isn't even close.

You're right: It's not fair to compare wifi with cable service. At all.

And who's fault is it that the cable companies haven't laid the cable in your town? Serious question: Do you actually have evidence that the city blocked the cable company?

Native Tar Heel and UNC grad here. It doesn't surprise me that Chapel Hill is on this list, but where's Carrboro? For those who don't know, Carrboro is blanketed by free, open wifi. They did this a few years ago, and I thought it was silly: bunch of beatnik, smelly hippies trying to be all one-love with the internet. Just pay for internet service already! But now I completely understand what was going on and recognize the urgent need for networks like Carrboro's. The state legislature needs to build that damn fence around Chapel Hill/Carrboro and redirect zoo funding already.

Our elected representatives working against their constituencies in favor of corporate interests? Imagine that.

Why don't you elect someone else? Why don't you run for election - coordinate with similar minded folks in other cities for maximum impact. I am from Europe, so I understand that the system only allows two parties. But can't independents run for anything else than president? If you are only allowed to chose between D or R, then I pity you.

@WaltC:"Governments--corporations--all of them are peopled with employees working for a living with their self-interests in mind. People in government are no more altruistic than people working for corporations. What's the difference?"

Big difference. While 'altruistic' is not the best word to use, I get your meaning.Government people are supposed to work towards fulfilling the will of their constituents, IF they're doing what they should. When the people they represent want to deploy muni broadband, and corporations somehow get laws passed to thwart that goal, there's going to be.... trouble.

Corporate people work to provide continually increasing profits to the shareholders. No corporation worth a tiny pinch of cat crap accepts anything less these days. If there is more profit in remaining a monopoly in a given city by lobbying to implement laws to ensure that, then the lobbying will surely commence in earnest. By their very structure and unceasing pursuit of continually increasing profits, most corporations are practically guaranteed to work against the interests of the citizenry at some point.

For the repug fascist that thinks public enterprise is inefficient we only have to look at the power industry where the current capital private energy model simply doesn't work very well at all. If fact, Hydro Quebec just won an award as the best power company in North America - all government "subsidized".

In the US no private operator can compete with TVA, or Bonneville.

In the Telecom industry its much worse as at least power companies are regulated.TimeWarner brags in its annual report how it makes 3000% profits on its broadband service with the connection to the home long ago paid for by the public when Telecom's were regulated monopolies. When a $30 a month DSL connection actually costs Big Telecom a buck, there's lots of room for a muni network to take compete. It takes a lot of cash directed at politicians pockets to keep that sort of scam going.

Modern ethernet equipment is a tiny fraction of the cost Big Telecom paid for its outrageously expensive proprietary TDM equipment now little more than obsolete junk. As a result and combined with the communication requirements of smart meters, public owned utilities could easily provide ultra high speed connection into every household/business at a fraction of the cost of current Big Telecom offerings with a fiber to the block network costing less than $20 a household to a block level wireless dual band N access point. That same fiber to the block network is required for smart meters with 99% of the cost of the smart meter buildout being installation - little affected by the capacity of the fiber cable installed. Subscriber connect costs would add $100 for Cat 6 copper to most subscribers and fiber to the rare more distant ones, $50 for Phoneline/Powerline, $50 for a WiFi mesh repeater or zilch to the customer's wifi card. $1 a month would suffice for O&M.

We could make Big Telecom build us a dirt cheap universally available pretty good but not perfect 300 MBs broadband wireless network that could be up and running in a year or so for maybe $2 a month a subscriber by requiring they as a condition of license that they install a bulk purchased $200 a unit outdoor dual band wireless units on every block in every neighborhood in the country serviced by the top of line $50 a month average 30 Mbs highest speed innernet service Big Telecom offers. Each unit would supply 50 roughly households. Telecoms would be allowed to recover costs on an audited cost of service basis. Fully funded it works out to less than two bucks a month per subscriber.

The cost would likely be less than Big Telecom spends annually buying booze for compliant "journalists" and politicians.

Our elected representatives working against their constituencies in favor of corporate interests? Imagine that.

Why don't you elect someone else? Why don't you run for election - coordinate with similar minded folks in other cities for maximum impact. I am from Europe, so I understand that the system only allows two parties. But can't independents run for anything else than president? If you are only allowed to chose between D or R, then I pity you.

If you think that voting outside fo the R or D will change much, then you don't understand the power of the lobby system.

...The people who think corporations are "monopolies" but think local governments are angels sent from heaven, pure as the driven snow, perfect in all their ways, are to be pitied, I think. It's been a long time since I was that naive.

but Walt in this case as in most places across the country the choice is to go with a monopoly or do without service. The government are not angels but facts and evidence suggest that in many cases municipal broadband being delivered by LGOs is cheaper, more reliable and faster the the incumbent operator offerings. It may not remain that way but you know for sure the likes of Time Warner AT&T and Comcast are terrified by these upstarts not just because they pull business away from them, but because they show the rest of the country what is possible if you actually invest in new technology now and don't drag your feet to wring every last cent possible out of your existing, old tired and substantially oversubscribed networks. As long as there is no substantive competition pressure put on the incumbents to provide better new faster and more competitively priced services there will be NO substantive change.

I accept that government is evil too, but if they force the current broadband providers to deliver better faster and more reliable service at a better price rather than using egregious legislation to force it we will be better off. The last thing the likes of AT&T and Time Warner want is to have spend large wads of cash to do what they should have been doing years ago when the suckled off the government cash cow that was funding Broadband roll out. Now they are back this time to prevent the upstart from show people how muni broadband could be if the incumbents would just frickin' do what we collectively pay them for. WE DO NOT NOW NOR HAVE WE EVER PAID THE TELCOS TO LINE THEIR SHAREHOLDERS POCKETS. Most businesses these have fundamentally lost their way and are singularly committed to providing vast profits to the boards and shareholders while they completely underperform in the areas of service delivery and customer satisfaction. given that they cannot deliver on the fundamentals of their chosen business line its time to remove the monopoly that they engineered and let capable others show them how its done. Prevention of competitive business does no one any good and this is a classic case in point.

I have a way to kill this bill BTW. Tie too the bill an ironclad performance requirement for the incumbent to have to roll out high speed 100 MBit Muni Broadband to all areas where LGO's develop a plan to implement it. It must be competetively priced and failure to deliver will carry horrendous penalties in terms of daily fines and loss of monopoly and full public oversight and operational monitoring . They also have just 2 years to do so in its entirety. The incumbents will not want anything to do with such a bill, It involves actually performing and spending money. something the companies are loathe to do, and more likely incapable of.

You know what... I bet big telcos wouldn't even be happy if munis had to open their pipes to the telcos themselves. You know why?? The next thing to happen would be that if it worked and legislators actually saw what benefits that it (potentially) brings, it would mean that big telcos would have to do the same!

That would have been a good rant, except that municipal broadband buildouts are funded by sales of municipal bonds, and operating expenses are funded by subscriber payments, so muni broadband has nothing to do with getting a free ride off of the entire taxpayer base at all. It's funded solely by the people interested in it and who think it is a good idea.

Our elected representatives working against their constituencies in favor of corporate interests? Imagine that.

Why don't you elect someone else? Why don't you run for election - coordinate with similar minded folks in other cities for maximum impact. I am from Europe, so I understand that the system only allows two parties. But can't independents run for anything else than president? If you are only allowed to chose between D or R, then I pity you.

Because of some monumentally stupid decisions on the part of (incumbent) politicians to make it easier for (incumbent) politicians to retain their seats, it costs millions of dollars to run a campaign successfully here in the United States, and you usually have to fund these campaigns with donations. These donations come from, to put it mildly, interest groups who expect you to look out for them when you do get elected. So the "D" and the "R" are mostly irrelevant. What it really is is "$" and without it, you don't stand a very good chance of being elected.

However, that's likely going to change soon. With the digital generation coming into political age (mid 20s or so), they may be able to effectively run campaigns for the price of a website. That would really shake the establishment up, of course, and I would expect to see legislation to prevent just that sort of thing from happening appear quickly. About all politicians can be expected to agree on and cooperate quickly on is protecting their own seats.

All of these resolutions are symbolic--they have no legal teeth whatsoever--and that makes them purely political. When the law is passed and signed by the governor, these cities will have to abide by it--resolutions to the contrary notwithstanding. (Every time Congress wants to make a political point while voting the other way, Congress passes a non-binding resolution to that effect, then votes against it.) People are so simple minded on this issue that it is amazing.

Municipalities putting up their own tax-payer funded "monopolies" are going to be better than privately funded "monopolies" how? It's so amusing to me how some people automatically assume that corporations are "bad" and governments--doesn't much matter what kind of governments--are "good." The notion is ridiculous.

Governments--corporations--all of them are peopled with employees working for a living with their self-interests in mind. People in government are no more altruistic than people working for corporations. What's the difference? The difference is that if a corporation offers you a product or service you don't happen to like, then you are under no obligation to pay for it. If, however, your local government levies a tax on you that you don't like, or provides a service that you find inferior--you are *forced* to pay for it whether you like it or not. The people who think corporations are "monopolies" but think local governments are angels sent from heaven, pure as the driven snow, perfect in all their ways, are to be pitied, I think. It's been a long time since I was that naive.

These days, tax-revenue-poor municipalities around the country are looking for plausible excuses to raise taxes of all kinds. "Municipal broadband" is a hot button for many of them, as they sit back and calculate all the new tax revenues they can "legitimately" raise under the Dudley DoRight banner of "municipal broadband." It is such a red herring.

If states are really unhappy with commercial broadband as rolled out in their localities, all they have to do, in my estimation, is to simply tell the ISPs what they have to provide in terms of service and products if they wish to continue doing business in their states. This is not unusual--every state, for instance, tells insurance companies of all types what they must do and who they must cover as a prerequisite for doing business in the state. And there's the rub. States could do this if this was actually what they wanted to do. It's not. Instead, they want to use the mirage of "municipal broadband" as a rallying cry to get their hands deeper into their constituents pockets in terms of tax levies. For them, "municipal broadband" is one of those juicy "public service" ideas that practically guarantees a permanent, ever-widening stream of incoming tax revenue. Local governments smack their lips at the prospect. For them it is a boondoggle.

Anecdotally, I've been in a suburb of a very large southern city for the past month (on business), and I've been using the local municipal wifi broadband the entire time. I also happen to be located smack in the middle of a hotspot, and am always at 4-5 bar signal strength. I've opted for the monthly fee of $21.95 for unlimited access while I am here. I cannot help but contrast this with my $42.95 Comcast cable account at home. My top download speed via municipal broadband here has been 112kb/s, average is about 80kb/s--and I'm on a G network. Despite being in a hotspot, I'm sure to lose the signal at least twice a day--sometimes more like 4-5 times a day. Packet loss somewhere along the line is regular and I'm used to pages sometimes loading quickly and sometimes continuously timing out--no rhyme or reason. Signal loss, when it comes, is inexplicable from my end, so I can only guess at some kind of sporadic interference somewhere, I suppose, that causes the WiFi network to simply disappear--sometimes for hours--from my available wireless SSID listing.

My Comcast cable broadband is so much better a deal than this that it defies description--Comcast costs 2x as much, but delivers 7x-20x the average download speed (depending on the server), has about 1% of the packet loss, and stays up so well that I have to really think about the last time my cable connection went down to recall it--and am not sure I can. At 2x the price, Comcast is a far, far better value than this municipal wifi.

And for those who keep talking about only being able to hook up with a single ISP in some areas--the kicker is that in my present location municipal wifi is the *only* service in the area that I can get aside from DSL--and it royally sucks, by comparison.... I know that in a sense it isn't fair to compare WiFi with cable broadband, since the latter has so many inherent advantages. But I do think it is fair to point out that in terms value received per dollar for the consumer, this particular municipal wifi isn't even close.

STRAW MAN ALERT.

Nobody is saying that a "municipal monopoly" is going to be better than the private monopoly. What people are asking for is for the municipality to step in and offer some much needed competition to the extremely shitty private choices out there. I could very well ask you why a private monopoly would be better than a public one.

The local monopolies in the Carolinas are terrible. There is little to no competition and the pricing and services are nowhere near "competitive". If done right, and from what I've seen and read the Munis in NC have been doing it right, I have no problem with this as it does spur competition and makes the corporations put in a little bit of effort.

I would hope for this right across from Charlotte in Rock Hill, SC but the city is so deeply in bed with the local monopoly it would never happen, and it would be a disaster if it did.

Our elected representatives working against their constituencies in favor of corporate interests? Imagine that.

Why don't you elect someone else? Why don't you run for election - coordinate with similar minded folks in other cities for maximum impact. I am from Europe, so I understand that the system only allows two parties. But can't independents run for anything else than president? If you are only allowed to chose between D or R, then I pity you.

Yeah, if you're not on a D or R ticket just forget about getting any election. Most people just go in and vote whoever they're not angry with at the time. I worked trying to get a Libertarian candidate elected in a local and almost every door I went to was met with an "awe, thats cute" or a plain old "We vote (D/R) in this house" mentality.

It really is sad, and this is what you get from it. A group of politicians screaming that a local group of people, using the local government to edge into a market to provide cheaper and often better service, are somehow destroying free market enterprise.

Somehow it is too expensive for a corporate giant like Comcast to compete when they have better bulk rates, cheaper backbone contracts, and engineers on staff with decades of experience. We should feel sorry for them; they are either idiots, liars, or crooks.

It really is sad, and this is what you get from it. A group of politicians screaming that a local group of people, using the local government to edge into a market to provide cheaper and often better service, are somehow destroying free market enterprise.

I think we're going to see more of this in the future as the pesky Democracy thing starts getting in the way of that Capitalism thing. I start to wonder if some folks have lost sight of the fact that this country wasn't founded on Capitalism.

All of these resolutions are symbolic--they have no legal teeth whatsoever--and that And for those who keep talking about only being able to hook up with a single ISP in some areas--the kicker is that in my present location municipal wifi is the *only* service in the area that I can get aside from DSL--and it royally sucks, by comparison....;) I know that in a sense it isn't fair to compare WiFi with cable broadband, since the latter has so many inherent advantages. But I do think it is fair to point out that in terms value received per dollar for the consumer, this particular municipal wifi isn't even close.

So what you're saying is, is that if you didn't have the muni broadband option, then you really wouldn't have the choice that you so craved at the start of your essay - if you want broadband, you're obligated to take the cable option OR ELSE.

Competition is what makes a free market... however when the competitors become national monopolies you're stuck again curses! Technology is your best friend, but service providers are your enemy.

Yes the gov should crackdown on spiked monopoly prices. No the monopolies shouldn't be so evil, I know too may that are.

Municipal broadband is a good thing, it forces the huge competitors to realize how dumb it was to be so cruel and heartless as a good portion of their users drop service and switch to muni instead.

I remember when Comcast blasted my Muni Optical Fiber for a crapload of BS about serving TV over fiber. Needless to say, comcast lost and there have been conversions upwards of 10,000 people in my city within a few months!

Will from wilson again, just to provide rebuttal to WaltC. Holy cow, most of what you wrote is incredibly untrue. TWC has had a "community board" here for years until recently. This board was supposed to provide community feedback to TWC. You know what happened? After many years of complete and utter failure for TWC to enact a single recommendation, the board elected to dissolve itself out of pure uselessness. TWC dictates and the city of Wilson jumps. They continue to cut services and raise prices across the board. This is a pure power grab by TWC. Greenlight service is not free, nor is it tax. We pay for the service. TWC makes claims just like yours....the company is such a complete failure in our community that WE THE PEOPLE of Wilson, started our own service and it is beholden to it's citizens, not it's shareholders.

You know, if Walt read his own post, he'd realize that without the "evil municipal monopoly", he couldn't have made the post in the first place. That's ironic. I guess from his silence that he did realize it, and shut off his "support for the gov monopoly" and turned off his WiFi.

Good, because he missed the point by a few lightyears. First of all, comparing municipal WiFi to the NC plan is like comparing a Model T to a Beemer. Because I'm a mechanic, I'll use a car analogy. The telcos are like the Big Three in the seventies - competing only with each other, matching each others pace. The hardwired municipal networks will do to the telcos what the arrival of Toyota and Honda did to the Big Three - a destruction still clearly in evidence today. How? By doing everything that they do right now, better. It's a perfect analogy. The telcos only advance when another telco does, only "innovate" to keep pace with their brethren. Meanwhile, the rest of the world (well, a few places) have been innovating at breakneck pace to remain competitive.

Here's where the analogy breaks. What the Big Three faced was a corporation from outside going, "Hah! Look at that! We can do that SO much better!" What the telcos face are their own customers looking around and going "Well look at that, these companies could do SO much more!" Just like the American car buyers of the seventies, the wool is beginning to fall off their eyes, and a few are realizing just how badly they've been taken for a ride. The telcos are determined to not let this occur. Rather then rising to the occasion and facing the competition head-on, they're determined to legislate themselves into monopolies. "De-Regulation". Right.